Guest 688- Registered: 16 Jul 2009
- Posts: 268
3 September 2010
21:0468665Equally disturbing is the concept that has come to my notice of a facilitation fund made available to those who have helped smooth the way towards the D.H.B. vision of the Ports sale.What worries me is that i have been informed that this fund approaches the figure of 900,000 pounds.Now is it me or any other form of commercial activity would this be classed as a slush fund.Also would it not help greatly the publics perception of the Board to publish who has or will recieve any amount from this 'fund'.For example would it not be in the public interest to discover if any local politicians or people that could influence the outcome of the current proceedings were in receipt of these inducement payments.I would like to know the forumites response to this ethical question
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
3 September 2010
21:1268666I am stunned, Mr. Heron, and think I will read what others have to say. One would ask where the 900.000 pounds came from, as Dover Port is a non-profit company belonging to DHB, which is by law non-profit. I imagine that, if what you write here corresponds, then it will be in the local news-papers Thursday come.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
3 September 2010
22:1368708No it is not a "not for profit" organisation and the charter does not prevent it making a profit, it just limits what it can do with the profit, hence the spat earlier this year between the ferry operators and DHB over what the increased port levies were being used for.
I suggest you visit the DHB web site and download and read their accounts, in the last financial year on which a report is available they had a turnover of some £60m+ and generated gross profits of £15m.
Honestly if you do not know or do not understand something either ask and see if someone else can explain it or use the web to research it.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
3 September 2010
22:2168715Well, they can make a profit, but it must be invested in the Port facilities. But I have read that, because of this limitation, it is in fact called a non-profit board, as the profits cannot be invested outside the port, hence the issue brought up by Mr. Heron is quite considerable.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
4 September 2010
09:4468753I await with interest to see BarryW comments and possibly his advice on this one. I am no expert but surely there is legal and moral issues in both threads?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 September 2010
12:1068770GaryC - I have no information or facts on this at all. I know only what is posted here and that is insufficient to form a clear idea of what has been going on.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
5 September 2010
11:1168847BarryW
"facilitation fund made available to those who have helped smooth the way towards the D.H.B. vision of the Ports sale £900,000"
Who are these people and should they be named?
Hypothetically, if this is true, what is your comment?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Unregistered User
5 September 2010
13:5868859Gary, it is very simple.
When you go to the bank for a loan they charge you a percentage for the set up/facility.
This is on top of any loan repayments.
A percentage of a £300m [quoted on TV]sum is rather large.
Some people also pay financial advisors to put the deal together.
You gotta know your way around this stuff.
Gets costly.
Watty
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
5 September 2010
18:1268880Whilst what you say is true PW, normally you either take the banks fees out of the amount of the loan or add it to the loan, plus normal fees for this sort of thing are in the range of 1-3% (£3-9m) not 0.3% as the sum mentioned here.
So this still begs the question, if his assertion is true, what is the money for and who is being paid it?
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Unregistered User
5 September 2010
19:0068898Ross, no arguments from me. I have retired from business ,you are in the front line.
Whatever the advice it does not come free. Upfront or later .
Watty
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
6 September 2010
10:3268962DHB's submission to the secretary of state is too comprehensive and too professional to have been written by them, in my opinion. I surmise that the £900 k would be partly the cost of consutants' time spent in its preparation and partly a provision for a success fee in the event the privatisation went ahead.
PG.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
14 September 2010
18:0370611Sorry, been away for a bit of a break.
Paul,
I might get to know my way round this sort of thing, if it wasn't kept so secret squirrel all the time. The question was, who are these people and what exactly is it that they have done to smooth the way? Perhaps I could throw another one in, how long have they been smoothing the way?
Of course I know about financial advisers and feasibility funds and smoothing the way and that payments have to be paid. My problem is, if everything is aboveboard and legal, why the secrecy?
BarryW,
Still waiting for your comment, should we read something into your silence?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
14 September 2010
18:1970613Gary - no nothing to say. I am a financial professional and I have no detailed knowedge of the specific matters you are referring to and cannot and will not comment as a result. I did say that above. Your interpretation of what is said or to have happened is not enough for me to comment.
It is also utterly irrelivant to my support for Charlie's Peoples Port proposal.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
14 September 2010
18:2270614BAZ My old mate
Gary is only asking your view
not from your as you call it professional side.
This forum is just a debating and views
if everything is going to come down to only expertese it will fail
surely you have an opinion
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
14 September 2010
18:2870617I dont have a view on the specific raised, as the information I have is from a limited source and has an interpretation placed on it that may or may not be accurate.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
14 September 2010
19:3970641barry
that last post was the equal of anything that sir humphrey appleby could have managed.
wasting your time as financial advisor, you should have become a permanent under secretary in whitehall.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
14 September 2010
20:0370648BarryW
You have made comments from plenty of dodgy sources, several news papers, many opinion polls and hundreds of bloggs, why can't you comment on this, as a forumite?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
14 September 2010
20:4270662I think Barry has explained himself very precisely and we should all just move on.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
14 September 2010
21:0370675Sid,
I have not asked Barry to explain himself, I have asked for a comment from him, on a subject that he has continually commented on since the election. I am not trying to trick him, embarrass him or accuse him of anything. I just find it strange he does not want to make a comment and I find his reason for no comment just as strange.
I also notice that you have not made any comments on this thread Sid. Perhaps you could give us your views?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
14 September 2010
21:1170681Certainly GaryC. I haven't got a clue about all the stuff Vic is bombarding us with, all very useful stuff I am sure, but I like things to be neat and concise and easily understandable.
I think the basic element of Charlie's plan is good, but I don't think DHB have been challenged hard enough to go back to the drawing board and to come up with a plan they can afford without flogging the thing off. I belive they saw the desperation in the last Governments eyes and reckon this latest lot will be just as keen to get their hands on the sale money. On that basis any old plan is good if it gets a sale, some development work and big payouts for those packing up and getting ready to sail off on their profits.
So, as you can see, I have an ill informed opinion, no regard for the previous government who got the nation into a financial mess, or the DHB bigwigs trying to line their own pockets out of the misery caused by Labour, and if Boy David doesn't tell 'em straight to think again, I will be very disappointed.
